CASE OF MEISTRO AND SANTIN v. ITALY



      In the case of Meistro and Santin v. Italy (1),

      The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1.  The case is numbered 3/1996/622/805.  The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2.  Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

_______________

      Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 28 March and 23 April 1996,

and composed of the following judges:

      Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,

      Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

      Mr C. Russo,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

      Having regard to the application against the Italian Republic

lodged with the Court on 14 January 1996 by two Italian nationals,

Mr Angelo Meistro and Mrs Edda Santin;

      Whereas Italy has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the

Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a

complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the

Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

      Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court

by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission

under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the

Convention;

      Having regard to the Commission's report of 4 July 1995 on the

application (no. 24798/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Meistro and

Mrs Santin on 15 June 1993;

      Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of

Ministers of the Council of Europe on 21 September 1995, in accordance

with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;

      Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings

in an Italian civil court, to which they are parties, and alleged a

breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone

is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ...

tribunal ...";

      Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that they sought a decision by the Court holding that there had

been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on

account of the length of the proceedings in issue, resulting from the

lack of adequate resources to deal with the cases on the Savona

District Court's list, which allegedly prevented the Italian court from

complying with the European Convention and the Italian Code of Civil

Procedure;

      Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1,

art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4

of Rules of Court B,

1.    Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the

      Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an

      application the case must be referred to it within a period of

      three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's

      report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to

      the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a

      violation of the Convention;

2.    Considers that in this case that provision was complied with,

      since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee

      of Ministers on 21 September 1995 and the application, although

      it reached the secretariat of the Commission on 5 January 1996

      and was communicated to the registry of the Court by the

      Commission on 14 January, had been sent on 15 December 1995, that

      is six days before expiry of the three-month period;

3.    Finds that

      (a)  the case raises no serious question affecting the

           interpretation or application of the Convention, as the

           Court has already established case-law on the "reasonable

           time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the

           Convention; and

      (b)  the case does not, for any other reason, warrant

           consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding

           that there has been a breach of the Convention, the

           Committee of Ministers can award the applicants just

           satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the

           Commission;

4.    Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

      considered by the Court.

      Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

15 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Franz MATSCHER

      Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

      Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy